Serena, Jesus, in a current understanding, is the matrix (template) of what it means to live an ecological life style, which in turn means a lifestyle that is based on "limitation, "enoughness" indeed of (voluntary) sacrifice". In short, Jesus has demonstrated for all to see what it means to live an "interdependent and interrelated lifestyle with all human beings and life-forms. That lifestyle has demonstrated once and for all what it means to to be included in "the Good News".

Shalom.

If you are looking for references, check the book "A New Climate for Theology" by retired professor Sallie McFague. p ------ p35

If one looks at Jesus as an archetypal human life (yes, a "myth" if you like, although I know you've been embroiled in another debate over the notion of the Bible as mythology), death and suffering had to be there. They are a part of being human. Some of that suffering (in some cases a lot of it) is due to human causes. Some of those causes are things we ourselves have done; others are things that others have done to us directly or to our social or physical environment. Original Sin is really a mythological understanding of the way that humans have the capacity to harm and cause suffering as well as heal because we don't always live in right relationship with our world. The Resurrection is then about showing us that we can transcend this suffering by recognizing that we are part of a sacred Cosmos (and it is part of us). This helps us overcome the "sinful" (don't like that word but don't have a better one handy) side of our nature and become healers rather than hurters. IOW, like many of the myths surrounding spring festivals, it is about renewal and healing and overcoming the hurt of the world rather than a sacrificial atonement for some great primal sin. All IMHO, of course (got to stop saying that in every post, it's so stereotypically Unitarian :) ).

very simple, serena. 

it means that if we want eternal life, we must be prepared to die as jesus did... defending the poor, the sick, the outcasts.

we must defend the least of our brothers with all our being, to the very end, if necessary... even if it means that we are 'beaten, humiliated, tortured, and murdered.'   if we do that, serena... if we defend the least of gods children to very bitter end, then we, like jesus, WILL NOT DIE, BUT WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.  even being murdered will not kill us.

HALLELUJAH!!!

So like Hercules when the fates tried to cut his life cord when he was swimming to save his girlfriend they could not because it became gold.  A gold life cord is that of a god and he did noble things with his life and therefore became a god?

what??  geez, serena, why are you bringing hercules into this??

have you been reading 'the pagan christ' again??

Hercules is a metaphorical guy so I was just comparing the two.

Nope.  Donated that book to the Library to destroy someone else's faith.    I am reading some books about evolution.

well, if you are wanting to compare metaphors, then i'll step away... i'm not in the mood.  however, if you want to understand how people who don't believe in atonement theology feel about the death and ressurection of christ, then lets talk!!!

really??  which ones??

I want to understand how people who don't believe in the atonement theory feel about the death and resurrection of Christ.

How do you think he got eternal life?   Did he get ressurrected physically or just figuratively?

i think that jesus himself was physically ressurrected.  a pretty powerful statement there.

It would be.  But where is He now?  Why can't we see Him like the disciples?  What about His promise in the Gospel of John " "I  will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.""

but you CAN see him, serena... jesus is everywhere.  he is that homeless guy on the streets talking to the parking meters, he is the elderly woman in the seniors home who has no visitors, he is the little girl who was taken out of a crack house and now has nowhere to live.

I think it is a powerful story about dying for what one believes in.  I prefer to skip the resurrection part, because it ruins the story for me.  Dying seems a lot easier if you get to come back from it.

Hanging there he looked a lot like you
And an awful lot like me!

-- The Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead

ah, but thats the beauty of it right there, fromm...

Like Mother Theresa?

So then eternal life is earned?  Are we also going to be physically resurrected?

How can you see Jesus in these people?  I see only dangerous people?

Very figuratively.  The rock is rolled away and he is not there.  Why?"  He rose and went to Heaven?  No, logically speaking one applies Occam's Razor  "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."  His body was moved. 

Now his soul/mind has joined the Kosmic IT but the body was buried somewhere.

Then onto sin.  A definition of sin is doing what is wrong or not doing what is right according to God's rules (1 John 3:4). If God says "Do not lie" and you lie, then you have sinned. If God says "Do not steal" and you steal, then you have sinned. According to God, sin separates you from Him (Isaiah 59:2).

So when Jesus marched into the temple and overturned tables, ruining business, scattering merchandise, is that not sin??

So the perfect ??? died to free us.  Hmmmm?  Bit of a problem there, perhaps??

But then I don't believe we are born with a monkey on our back.

IT

Russ

what do you mean??  if you mean that mother teresa was another jesus, then no....

i don't believe that we will all be physically resurrected as jesus was, no. 

first of all, how is a little girl who was rescued from a crack house 'dangerous'??

secondly, i see jesus in them because they are the least of my brothers and sisters, and when we break bread with them, we are breaking bread with jesus himself.

But then it is a dishonest resurrection.

So the disciples who moved the body sinned because the resurrection is a lie and then they are separated from God.

Incidentally, this is the same scripture radical antiabortionists use to justify what they do.   So Jesus was not sinning here he was protecting the innocent or the cheated.

How do you explain death?  How do you explain disease, famine, war....?

Not literally, figuratively.

She is dangerous because she could steal from me to help support her drug habit.  She is dangerous because drug dealers might be after her and if I hang around her they might come beat me up or steal from me.  She is dangerous because she might lead my children to the bad life of drugs.

I remember reading that in the Bible but I really don't get it.

The most likely reason is the correlation with the solar calendar. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun.

Well if Jesus just got a slap on the wrist and was let go then his sacrifice wouldn't have meant much. It had to be spectacular.

For me, the simplest solution is that God, who is Sovereign and all powerful raised Jesus from the dead. For me, that tends to put to rest all the complicated conspiracy theories.

We are to see God in all people.  We are to see Jesus in all people.

Let's make it simple.  In Matt 25 Jesus said that since you fed the hungry you did it to me.  This is acceptance of Jesus.  Those who fed the hungry are invited into the kingdom.  The same holds true for the other things done. 

Good works?  Absolutely not.  God judges the heart and thus looks for the motivation.  It is the motivation that is judged.

The story of the crucifixion is midrash.  Yes Jesus was crucified and three days or so later something mysterious and beyond comprehension happened and the disciples felt the certainty of his real presence.

Shalom

Mate

 .

 It's a tough one to get. I expect that's one of the reasons it was deemed important enough to write down.  I'm sure someone can comment on a more academic theological level but I'll take a stab at what it means to me at least.

 When Jesus supped with the poor and paid attention to the prositutes, criminals, the tax collectors, all of the lowly icky people he was making a profound statement in his time a statement that last through time.   He  through his  actions  was  saying that  these people, the unclean, those that society deem less worthy or simply unworthy weren't in the his eyes and in the eyes of God or the divine. They are worthy of Gods grace, love or messages as any other person, despite what condemnation the current human society placed on them.   Many of his parables also indicate this, the prodigal son comes to mind as one.  Some of the disciples reactions to him doing these things were also in the realm of 'we don't get it' too. They're basically reacting like many of us do.

This is part of the "Good News" he was proclaiming.  He wasn't just proclaiming that to those particular people but to everyone else  and asking  us to see the same thing or at least try too.  Render onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and render onto God what is God. If you think of Ceaser being the human created hierarchy of authority and value we place on people vs how God looks at people then that statement can take on deeper meaning.

 It's not easy because as you commented they seem dangerous. Danger is connected to fear and is a very natural human response to uncertainty and the unknown.  Jesus through his actions is asking us to work at overcoming our fears and look at those types of people through his eyes, to try see what he saw and thusly what God sees and through our actions of looking and trying to see and understand it, even though it might be hard and uncomfortable get closer to a place of acting from a place of love rather then just fear.    In doing so we can get closer to Jesus and God and acting and understanding like Jesus would  which  was  imo  really his  point of  coming.  He was  a much showing  as  way of acting  not  just  in  our  own personal  relationship  with  God  but  towards  other people  too as a result or reflection of our individual relationship with God.

If you can take as an assumption that in this day and age Jesus would indeed talk or even eat with the girl removed from the crackhouse despite the fear of what she might do then that's the start. The next step is to just ask why? Just like the disciples asked why. Change the 'what would Jesus do' question to a 'why would Jesus do it' question'.

  Sigh appears to have answered that question for herself and decided that she would join that supper and thus in a symbolic sense or a spiritual sense be 'breaking bread' with Jesus like Jesus would do if he was literally here in physical body at the same table with that girl.

 It is a difficult thing to do and to me at least probably one of the most difficult examples to try to understand or emulate. It's also not something at least in my experience that just changes instantly when one tries to engage with understanding it.  It takes work, it takes a lot of thinking and contemplation.  In my life it's something I've been working on for years.  It really is worth it though.  The results of overcoming that natural fear have have been quite amazing at times both for me personally and for the other people involved.  Sometimes the results aren't though but that's just the way of it. 

our soul is eternal.

IF you are a christian....

and THAT is what makes following the truth of the gospels so darn hard, serena...  if you LET GO of everything and follow christ, truly follow his teachings, then they cannot harm you.  if you truly care for that little girl, so much so that your very life is on the line, then you will not die, but have eternal life. 

its not so hard once you can wrap your mind around how jesus really lived his life.  the guy had nothing, and so he had everything to give.

they are the physical limitations of our bodies.

Consuming Fire

Without, honestly and seriously, getting into an argument.  My problem with the whole story is that:

God (the perfect) build the race of humans with built-in defects (now why would a perfect God do that?) then sends Jesus (God's son or is it part of God itself) to atone for the mistake that God itself made?  This mistake is corrected by Jesus/God dieing on the cross. 

Sorry, but to me that is like building a car with known defects that causes it to hit trees and kill people.  The solution being to constantly take it to your local service station every Sunday for repairs.

Now wouldn't it be simpler to design people so they had no sin?

If one person dieing solved the probelm why couldn't the race have been saved without the death?

Or does this God so desperately need attention that it caused this to happen so it would get the constant attention.

IT

Russ

Hi Mate,

You wrote:

"Yes Jesus was crucified and three days or so later something mysterious and beyond comprehension happened and the disciples felt the certainty of his real presence."

Yes, something mysterious did happen - the resurrection of Jesus Christ, physically raised from the dead...raised to allow Thomas to put a hand on his wounded side...raised to sit on the shore and eat with the disciples...raised to be witnessed in the flesh by 500 witnesses.

This is my fervent belief, as is the atoning miracle of Christ dying for our sins on the cross. However please be aware it is also my fervent belief the fact you may not believe as I do in any way negates your beliefs, your faith, and the good works that come from it.  One of the things I love about the United Church is that folks like us can disagree on fundamental aspects of  faith, yet come together on convergent aspects.  For me, one of those converging aspects that bring us together is Matthew 25, which from what I read of your posts is a cornerstone for you.  It is for me as well.

God bless,

AMEN, brother dave!!  i dont' agree with you about much, but this made me stand up and cheer!!

Dave/Sigh

As another post pointed out, the only thing the UCC is agreed upon is their unbelief.  No, I think we are very very ageed as to our belief, it is just that each one's belief is slightly different. 

But there is at the core, the firm belief that there is a God. And, that debate is healthy.

IT

Russ

i'm from a catholic background, where debate and questions were discouraged, and even seen as evil.... it was pretty much just shut up and sing.

to be able to challenge my faith, and to discuss issues surrounding the bible and life??  its just so amazing!!

Jadespring

An absolutely delightful post.  Amen.

Shalom

Mate

my you have a perty wide paint brush there , sterotyping your brothers and sisters, thats not true, i grew up catholic also and all my family are still, and there are alot of catholics and preists there of, who encurage debate.

DH.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

As a mystic I see things differently.  Let me explain.  The gospels were written many years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The gospel writers, unknkown, were not eye witnesses.  They were writing from oral stories, the witnrss of others experiences, history metaphorized etc.

Historically what we know about Jesus is that he was born, in all likelihood in Nazareth to parents Mary and probably Joseph.  We know he became an itinerant preacher, healer, exocist etc.  We know that he was crucified out of fear that he was upsetting the social milieu as one committing treason. 

The stories of Jesus death are made up.  Those folks were not there.  There was no one to report to the author of Mark etc.  The details of the story are but theological additions to that story.  The resurrection was a profound event that happened on Easter Sunday.  We don't know what that event was but whatever it was it was so profound as to change the cowering disciples into avid followers of Jesus.  In some mysterious way that felt and were certain that this Jesus was still with them.  They knew he was eveery bit as much as today many of us know that Jesus is still here.

The stories of the sightings after the resurrection are theological additions.  It may beand probable is that the disciples had mystical experiences such as visions as Paul did on the road to Damascus.

When things happen that we cannot understand we are left with trying to explain them in very limited human terms and in many cases have to resort to metaphor.

The problem with needing an inerrant Bible or a physical resurrection is, as I see it, quite clear.  When the inexplicable happens we need to explain it in physical terms.  The question is why.  If it is not historical then it is not true, which is a fallacy that arose out of the enlightenment and is a false assumption.  We need it to be historical to make it "real".  As I see this it is a lack of trust in God.  "Unless I see the nail prints in his hand . . . ua  very natural human reaction.

As people we have had three manifestations of God:  The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  These are metaphorical and human attempts to explain what was simply not explainable at that time and is still not today.  Thus I have no problem speaking of the Trinity or the resurrection because I have no other language to explain them.

Just as a little aside if Jesus is at the right hand of God and he is God then God is beside himself.  LOL.

Shalom

Mate

Mate

"Just as a little aside if Jesus is at the right hand of God and he is God then God is beside himself. "

And if Jesus is God then God died to correct a mistake God made in allowing sin.

Amazingly interesting.

IT

Russ

RP

Absolutely.  Pure middle age thinking.  We know better or perhaps I should say we should know better today.

On the other hand if that is what people want to believe, I have no problem with it and I doubt that God really does either.  Humans are highly deficient when compared to God.

Shalom

Mate

Hi Serena,

That is pretty short.  But it is wrong.

You describe "a" theory of atonement not "the" theory of atonement.  Several theories of atonement actually exist.

It isn't either this or that Serena.  There are other theories of atonement and those theories would do different things with the same portion of the narrative.

Maybe.  Provided you are very loose on how you make the connections.

Well.  That is pretty loose.

Jesus is never redeemed?  Hellooooooo resurrection. 

From death to life is major redemption.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'd argue otherwise, and I've thought about this a lot. Regardless of whether Jesus did or didn't exist, the event- or the story of the event- has probably changed the world more than anything else to ever occur in history- aside from purely natural mega-events such as creation, the dinosaurs' extinction, etc.

dude, its true.  the pope tells you how you are supposed to interpret the bible, and so thats how you interpret the bible, no questions asked.  i was kicked out of RCIA for daring to question why priests couldn't get married.

nope.  it MIGHT be true if the majority of people in the world were christian, but it isn't.   there are FAR more muslims in the world than christians, not to mention jewish people, athiests, buddhists, etc. 

from where you are sitting, you may think christ is pretty major, but if you got up and walked around the world a bit, you would see just how small your vision is.

i would have to agree, i remember watching a show on the history channel, it was a count down of the most influence people the world has ever seen, number one , was Jesus

The trouble I have with atonement theology is that I am asked to believe  that Jesus is God, and God created humans as the one and only imperfect creature/thing in all of God's creation, so utterly flawed that God felt the need to commit suicide over it to "fix" the problem, yet I don't think we have seen any change in human nature or human spiritual nature ever since. 

I am asked to believe that God, the Supreme Creator of the Universe, lowered Godself to become merely human to "save" humanity.  Wouldn't that be sort of like me choosing to become a dog and die so I could "save" all dogs from their own evil ways? 

I think that atonement theology also encourages people to neglect their own responsibility for their own "sins" and their own spirituality by focussing so heavily on someone else, Jesus.   Yep, the church says its all taken care of for me, and I had nothing to do with it?

As a metaphor, I think the story of Jesus is like a template for each and every one of us.  To express in this physical world, our soul needs matter, a body.  So our soul is "born" and incarnates as a human.  We learn how to live in a heavy, cumbersome, and very needy cloak of flesh, and we strive to awaken our higher soul existence in this primitive carbon based body.  When the body dies, we shed the flesh and return to the dimension of the soul. 

I think that's what Jesus did, and he was here to show that's what we will do. However, as an individual, I think he was very powerfully advanced.  Perhaps so powerful, that he was able to bring the physical dimension and the soul dimension briefly together to clearly illustrate to the disciples and others, by appearing to them after death.

thats your personal view, a world view sits our callender on the events that took place aprox 2009 yrs ago,

we have BC, before Christ

we have AD, in Latan " Anno Dio, the Yr of our Lord

of course today with political correctness , the world is trying to change AD to CE, Current Era, regardless CE is bassed on the events of AD

I call that political hyporicy

also according to world charts , you would be incorect

http://www.blog.joelx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/largest-religions-graph.gif

There are several interpretations of the crucifixion.

"The domination systems no to Jesus way and God's yes to his way.

A revelation of the path of transformation:  we are transformed by dying and rising with Christ.

The Cross as revelation of the depth of God's love for us.  It is not the story of a human sacrifice required by a judging God but a parable of God's radical grace."

p 269, "Jesus", Marcus Borg.

The substitutionary atonement.

A ransom.

"Sacrificial offerers never thoujght that the point of sacrifice was to make the animal suffer or that the greatest sacrifice one in which the animal suffered lengthily and terribly."

"It is certainly correct, therefore, to call Jesus's death--or in the death of any martyt--a sacrrifice, but substitution and suffering are not the point of sacrifice.  Substitutionary atonement is bad theoretical Christian theology just as suicidal terrorism is bad practical Islamic theology.  Jesus died because of our sins, or from our sins, but that should never be risread as for our sins."

p139-14-, "God and Empire", J. D. Crossan.

"At least fi ve interpretations of the cross are found in the New Testament itself."!;;Rejection and vindication;  the defeat of the powers but not just earthly powers: the way' a revelation of the depth of God's love' Jesus died for our sins"

P92-94, "he Heart of Christianity", Marcus J. Borg.

Some repeats but the point is there is more than one way of interpreting the death of Jesus and I am in agreement with both Borg adn Crossan that the substitutionary atonement theory is simply bad theology.

Shalom

Mate